Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Judge Strikes Down Obama’s Offshore Drilling Ban

Photo via the Telegraph A federal judge in New Orleans blocked the Obama administration’s 6 month moratorium on deep water offshore drilling. According to the New York Times , the judge Martin L. C. Feldman wrote in a 22-page opinion that “The blanket moratorium … seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger.” He said the offshore ban would cause “punitive” economic harm and was unwarranted. The White House disagree… Read the full story on TreeHugger

Read more from the original source:
Judge Strikes Down Obama’s Offshore Drilling Ban

Awkward: ABC Skips Report That Bianna Golodryga’s Fiancee Is Leaving the White House

Good Morning America on Tuesday skipped the news that Peter Orszag, Barack Obama’s budget director, is resigning from the White House. Perhaps not coincidentally, Orszag is also the fiancee of GMA’s weekend anchor Bianna Golodryga. CBS’s Early Show and NBC’s Today both covered the subject. Today reporter Savannah Guthrie explained, “It’s a mix of the personal and the political. Most budget directors stay about 18 months. If he had stayed much longer, he’d probably have to get into the next budget cycle and be in for the long haul. He’s also getting married this fall .” The Early Show’s Betty Nguyen pointed out, “Orszag would be the first high profile member of the Obama administration to leave.” GMA has a history of ignoring awkward details for Golodryga. In January, the show skipped the fact that Orszag had a love child with his previous girlfriend (after divorcing his first wife). NBC covered it. On May 17, 2010, Orszag actually appeared on GMA to congratulate his fiancee for being named the new weekend anchor. With former Democratic aide turned host George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America, doesn’t the program have enough conflicts of interest? Brief transcripts from The Early Show and Today can be found below: The Early Show 06/22/10 BETTY NGUYEN: It’s reported that President Obama’s budget director is calling it quits. A Democratic official tells the Associated Press that Peter Orszag is expected to resign in the coming months. Orszag would be the first high profile member of the Obama administration to leave. Today 6/22/10 MORALES: All right. Meantime, Savannah, there’s also some news this morning about the budget director, Peter Orszag? GURTHRIE: That’s right. As long expected, Peter Orszag is actually leaving the administration, probably some time this summer. Why? It’s a mix of the personal and the political. Most budget directors stay about 18 months. If he had stayed much longer, he’d probably have to get into the next budget cycle and be in for the long haul. He’s also getting married this fall. MORALES: All right. Savannah Guthrie with a lot there going on at the White House- thanks so much.

Follow this link:
Awkward: ABC Skips Report That Bianna Golodryga’s Fiancee Is Leaving the White House

Scarborough Calls on Petraeus and Gates to Fire McChrystal to ‘Keep the President’s Hands Clean’

During Tuesday’s Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough called for the firing of General Stanley McChrystal. He boldly exclaimed that this discharge should not come from the Commander-in-Chief because “Democrats have to treat generals differently from Republicans.” He goes even further and states, “Were this a Republican, were it George W. Bush, McChrystal would have been fired yesterday,” and “the press would have understood it.” Of course, because during the last administration, the media was noted for giving former President George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt, especially with military decisions. Interestingly enough, a flashback to January 31, 2006, tells a different tale. During MSNBC’s three-hour post State of the Union coverage, Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough, denounced President Bush’s message about Iraq. Matthews thought that President Bush “cashiered” General Shinseki’s remarks about wanting more troops and believed the “idea that these guys are free to think out loud, I thought, has been yet to be proven.” Scarborough echoed Matthews and cited that, “For the most part, the Generals and the Admirals, 99 percent of them parrot what the Pentagon and what the President wants.” [Full article available here ] However, it is now 2010, and it is no longer cool to have the courage to stand up or to think out loud against this administration. There is a new president, so Scarborough insisted, because he is a Democrat, “Gates and Petraeus both have to come out, they need to fire McChrystal, and keep the president’s hands clean.” Since, Scarborough served on the Armed Services Committee he should be aware that the President is the top link in the chain of command and therefore is the ultimate authority, but he wants to make it easier for this Democrat to not do his duty as Commander-in-Chief. Apparently, Scarborough’s conservative viewpoint is synonymous with other MSNBC hosts who parrots White House talking points.

Breaking: Federal Judge Blocks Obama Admin Moratorium (Brave NAE Experts Score a Win)

Via the Associated Press (link may be dynamic and subject to change):  A federal judge in New Orleans has blocked a six-month moratorium on new deepwater drilling projects that was imposed in response to the massive Gulf oil spill. The White House says President Barack Obama’s administration will appeal. Several companies that ferry people and supplies and provide other services to offshore drilling rigs had asked U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans to overturn the moratorium. This later paragraph from the breaking news report explains why I believe Ken Salazar’s dissenting experts may have influenced the judge’s outlook on the case: Feldman says in his ruling that the Interior Department failed to provide adequate reasoning for the moratorium. He says it seems to assume that because one rig failed, all companies and rigs doing deepwater drilling pose an imminent danger. Feldman’s take seems to mirror the language of the dissenters. Investors Business Daily editorialized on Salazar’s moratorium imposition travesty on June 10 : Experts brought together by the Obama administration to review offshore drilling safety were asked to review recommendations in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. They did not give their blessing to the six-month drilling moratorium announced by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and have accused him of deliberately appending their report to make it seem like they did. According to the New Orleans Times Picayune, Salazar’s May 27 report to the president said the seven experts “peer reviewed” his recommendations, including a six-month ban on drilling in waters deeper than 500 feet. The experts say the report they reviewed suggested stopping only new drilling in waters deeper than 1,000 feet. The reviewers for Salazar’s report were provided by the National Academy of Engineering. Their joint letter says that while they agreed with the report’s various safety recommendations, “we do not agree with the six-month blanket moratorium on floating drilling. A moratorium was added after the final review and was never agreed to by the contributors.” One panelist, Bob Bea of the University of California, Berkeley, said in an e-mail: “Moratorium was not a part of the … report we consulted-advised-reviewed.” The academy’s Ken Arnold was less subtle, saying: “The secretary should be free to recommend whatever he thinks is correct, but he should not be free to use our names to justify his political decisions.” The panelists simply oppose the announced moratorium. “A blanket moratorium is not the answer,” the letter says. “It will not measurably reduce risk further, and it will have a lasting impact on the nation’s economy, which may be greater than that of the oil spill. We do not believe punishing the innocent is the right thing to do.” Neither do we, and frankly we’re tired of the deliberate manipulation of facts and truth in the name of protecting the environment … Even the Associated Press finally broke down and covered the dissenters’ outcries yesterday, while still somewhat concealing the full scope of their objections: The scientists, who had consulted with Salazar on a May 27 report on drilling safety, said the Interior Department falsely implied that they had agreed to a “blanket moratorium” that they actually opposed. The scientists said the drilling moratorium went too far and warned that it may have a lasting impact on the nation’s economy. A spokeswoman for Salazar said the May 27 report was not intended to imply that all experts from the National Academy of Engineering had agreed to the moratorium. “By listing the members of the NAE that peer-reviewed the 22 safety recommendations contained in the report, we didn’t mean to imply that they also agreed with the moratorium on deep-water drilling,” said spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff. Sure, Kendra. Though it’s only one step, it may very well be that thanks to the stink raised by the NAE experts and outlets like the Wall Street Journal, IBD, and many center-right blogs, the nation might start getting the energy sector of its economy back in gear. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

See the original post:
Breaking: Federal Judge Blocks Obama Admin Moratorium (Brave NAE Experts Score a Win)

At Google, You’re Old and Gray At 40 [Cubicle Culture]

Google faces an imminent California Supreme Court decision on whether it engaged in age discrimination. But that hasn’t kept the internet company from patting itself on the back for how it supports old “Greyglers” — that’s any Googler over 40 . More

Rolling Stone’s McChrystal Profile Helps No One [Profiles]

Rolling Stone has published its big Stanley McChrystal “insubordination” piece online now, and he just trashes Barack Obama throughout the whole thing! Well, not really. There’s a bigger thing getting trashed here called “the War in Afghanistan.” More

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Dismisses ‘Fake’ ‘Platitudes’ of Conservative Mount Vernon Statement

Liberal MSNBC host Rachel Maddow on Monday mocked the Mount Vernon Statement, a conservative declaration of principles as ” a grandiose fake-parchmenty-looking thing .” The anchor first described the document as endorsing “the rule of law, and individual liberty, and opposing tyranny in the world, and the defense of family, neighborhood, community and faith.” [Audio available here .] Maddow then dismissed, “In other words, such generic ‘I love my mama’ platitudes that even a pinko-Commie-liberal-elite-infidel like me would be happy signing on to all but one paragraph of the whole Mount Vernon Statement.” (At one point, Maddow appeared to be mimicking the tone and voice of the late William F. Buckley.) The left-wing host didn’t explain which paragraph she objected to, perhaps it was the one about “limited government” or “market solutions.” However, if it has caught the ire of MSNBC, conservatives might want to learn more about it. To view the entire document, go here . To see prominent conservatives, including MRC President Brent Bozell, read the Mount Vernon Statement, see a previous NewsBusters blog. A transcript of the segment, which aired at 9:05pm EDT on June 21, follows: RACHEL MADDOW: Republicans have made a bunch of efforts in the last year to nail down exactly what it is they want to tell the American people they stand for. Remember the pizza party that Eric Cantor and Mitt Romney hosted last year? That was supposed to be the kickoff for the Republican Party`s new National Council for a New America. The plan was for Republicans to travel around the country, soliciting ideas from average Americans. Eric Cantor pulled the plug on that big idea last month after holding just one pizza event in the whole year, one little pizza party. And then there was this idea-soliciting effort from House Republicans – Americaspeakingout.com, an online forum for Americans to provide new ideas for the Republican Party platform. As the Associated Press noted this weekend, that effort is also not bearing much fruit for Republicans. If you go to the “Liberty and Freedom” page, for example, right now, you can see that the top suggested ideas are “Please protect my right to play poker,” and “Eliminate `don`t ask, don`t tell.`” Also, “Keep the Republicans out of our bedrooms” and “Ban handguns” and “Drop the idea that we`re a Christian country.” You think the Republican Party is ready to run with those ideas? From Americaspeakingout.com, their big ideas generator? Then there was You Cut, the House Republican project to let the American people literally set the legislative agenda for Republicans. People would vote online on what federal spending programs should be cut, and then House Republicans would propose those cuts, thereby slashing federal spending by 0.017 percent. The anti-spending Cato Institute here ridiculing House Republican for their effort to exchange their own initiative, their own leadership, for a meaningless social media gimmick. Then there was the Mount Vernon Statement, a grandiose fake-parchmenty-looking thing that conservatives signed on to as their statement of Constitutional conservatism for the 21st century, endorsing things like the rule of law, and individual liberty, and opposing tyranny in the world, and the defense of family, neighborhood, community and faith. In other words, such generic “I love my mama” platitudes that even a pinko-Commie-liberal-elite-infidel like me would be happy signing on to all but one paragraph of the whole Mount Vernon Statement. And if I fit into your definition of conservative, your definition of conservative is probably broken. It`s one thing to have the luxury to work out your principles in the abstract, to have your pizza parties and your parchmenty statements that talk about loving America and hating foreign aid or whatever. It`s all well and good until what you want government to do actually gets put to the test, like say when a giant, totally unforeseen catastrophe happens, like what is happening right now in the Gulf — the biggest environmental disaster ever in our country, plainly and inarguably caused by an oil company screwing up. It`s exposed deep rifts and deep disagreements among conservatives, among Republicans, about what to do and why.

Read more here:
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Dismisses ‘Fake’ ‘Platitudes’ of Conservative Mount Vernon Statement

Dem Leader Hoyer: Middle Class Tax Cuts Aren’t ‘Sacrosanct’; WaPo Buries Story on Page A13

In a recent interview, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the Bush tax cuts that affect the middle class should not be considered “totally sacrosanct.” The number two Democrat in the House of Representatives “acknowledg[ed] that it would be difficult to reduce long-term deficits without breaking President Obama’s pledge to protect families earning less than $250,000 a year,” reported Lori Montgomery in the June 22 Washington Post. That certainly sounds worthy of front-page placement, especially in the midst of a contentious midterm election year, but Post editors instead parked the 9-paragraph story below the fold on page A13 of the print edition and gave it a snoozer of a headline: “Hoyer: Tax cuts need to be examined.” “Middle-class benefit may not be affordable long-term, he says,” the subheader dryly noted. The online version headline gave a similarly bland headline, “Rep. Steny Hoyer says middle-class tax breaks may not be affordable long-term.” At no point in her article did Montgomery raise the question of whether an increased tax burden would be “affordable” to middle class earners weathering a rough and uncertain economy.

Read the original:
Dem Leader Hoyer: Middle Class Tax Cuts Aren’t ‘Sacrosanct’; WaPo Buries Story on Page A13

Goooooooooaaaal!…Goal…goal…

Maybe he just doesn’t understand the object of the game.

Follow this link:
Goooooooooaaaal!…Goal…goal…

MSNBC Declares Barton’s Comments a Big Victory for Dems; Bring on Van Jones Afterwards

If you take MSNBC’s Luke Russert’s words at face value, you would think the Democrats are going to win big this November–all thanks to Rep. Joe Barton’s (R-Texas) comments on the Obama administration’s treatment of BP, and their “shakedown” of the company via the escrow fund. “A lot of Democrats see this as the ammunition they need to directly tie the Republican Party with that of big oil,” Russert summarized. Barton expressed his disapproval at the hearing for the White House’s treatment of BP in forcing them to agree to the $20 billion escrow fund, calling it a “shakedown.” MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer was visibly irritated during her news hour with the statement, and Russert called it a “really big blunder.” However, as NewsBusters reported , MSNBC’s own Ed Schultz was ecstatic yesterday over the very actions of the White House, and spoke positively of the “shakedown.” Russert mentioned comments from multiple Republicans distancing themselves from Rep. Barton’s comments, including House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio). “One Republican I spoke to said ‘This was absolutely one of the worst things that could have ever happened to us. We essentially gave the Democrats an early Christmas gift with this one’,” Russert reported. ‘This is great news for the White House,” Russert continued. “They’ve been coming under attack for not taking an authoritative leadership position–they can now spin this as a political issue.” Russert also mentioned Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) who called the escrow fund a “redistribution of wealth” fund, and essentially put her in the same camp with Barton. “A really big political victory today for Democrats on Mr. Barton’s slip-up,” Russert concluded. MSNBC then brought on Gov. Haley Barbour (R-Miss.), but lost him in the middle of his segment. The network then switched to liberal guest Van Jones, who defended the Obama administration’s response to the disaster. “There is a whole ideology at play here that says ‘We hate the federal government. The federal government is a problem’,” Van Jones added. “The last time I checked, the federal government was America’s government. America’s government does not need to be weakened and undermined.” The transcript of the segment, which aired on June 17, at 3:42 p.m. EDT, is as follows: MSNBC anchor CHRIS JANSING: BP’s CEO Tony Hayward, since 10:00 this morning, with a couple of breaks, maybe an hour and forty-five–he has been on the hot seat for four hours, give or take, and one huge piece of controversial statements that came out of this didn’t come from him but came from a Congressman Joe Barton who called the agreement to set off fund to pay the people who have been hurt by this a “$20 billion slush fund.” He accused the White House of a shakedown and he apologized to BP for what happened in setting that up. Now he came back in just about the last half hour. He said in case anything was misconstrued, he is fully behind this investigation of BP’s actions and that there is no doubt in his mind that BP is responsible for this spill. Let’s go to our Capitol Hill correspondent Luke Russert, and this has set off a storm of controversy, Luke. LUKE RUSSERT: It absolutely has, Chris. A really amazing subplot within the hearing. Mr. Barton saying that he is apologizing to BP for the White House making them set up this escrow fund. A lot of Democrats see this as the ammunition they need to directly tie the Republican party with that of big oil.  Mr. Barton’s comments have not just upset Democrats, they have upset a lot of his fellow Republicans. One Republican from Florida, Jeff Miller, someone who’s from the area that’s directly affected by this spill, calling on Mr. Barton to resign as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Also John Boehner, the Republican Majority Leader of the Republican party, the Minority Leader of the Republican party saying, quote, that he does not agree with the characterization that Mr. Barton made. He himself tried to distance himself from those comments. Really quite extraordinary, party leaders trying to keep Joe Barton away. Barton is from Texas. Records have shown that he is a friend of big oil. Since 1989, he has gotten well over a million dollars in donations from the folks attached to the oil industry, or the oil companies themselves. So it’s not too shocking he would probably make a statement like that. That being said, a huge political firestorm up here on Capitol Hill, one that is so big that even the Vice President had this to say at a press conference at the White House this afternoon. (Video Clip) Vice President JOE BIDEN: And I find it outrageous to suggest that if in fact we insisted that BP demonstrate their preparedness to put aside billions of dollars–in this case $20 billion–to take care of the immediate needs of people who are drowning. These guys don’t have deep pockets. The guy who runs the local marina, the guy who has one shrimping boat, the guy who has one small business–he can’t afford to lose ten, twelve, fifteen thirty thousand dollars a.month. RUSSERT: There you have Vice President Biden speaking out very forcefully about Mr. Barton’s comments. Now we should say that Mr. Barton just apologized at the committee hearing, saying that he was sorry if anyone misconstrued his comments earlier, and that he does–that BP is in fact responsible for this spill. But the damage has really been done. One Republican I spoke to said this was absolutely one of the worst things that could have ever happened to us. We essentially gave the Democrats an early Christmas gift with this one. A really big blunder on Mr. Barton’s part, Chris. Now Michelle Bachmann from Minnesota has also dived into this, saying that this escrow fund was a “redistribution of wealth fund.” You’re going to see Democrats in the next few days really trying to paint Republicans as the party of big oil, something they have desperately wanted to do. This is great news for the White House. They’ve been coming under attack for not taking an authoritative leadership position–they can now spin this as a political issue. They were very quick to release a statement against Mr. Barton. As you saw, the Vice President speaking out forcefully right there, this will now become “Republicans are with big oil, we’re with the residents of the Gulf, who are on the Democratic side.” A really big political victory today for Democrats on Mr. Barton’s slipup. JANSING: Thanks very much, we appreciate it, Luke.We want to talk now to Gov. Haley Barbour, he is at a new Toyota plant that is opening in Blue Springs, Mississippi. Something interesting here, because one of the groups of people we’ve seen in the past will probably have a little understanding of what the BP execs have gone through with these hearings are some of the Toyota execs who have been in the hot seat before. And I do, governor, want to ask you, of course, about what’s going on there with the Toyota plant. But let me ask you first if you have had a chance to watch any of these hearings today, and if so , what do you think about them? Gov. HALEY BARBOUR: We have had the pleasure in Mississippi of announcing that Toyota decided this morning, and announced this morning, that they will go forward with the start of operations for their new facility in Blue Springs, Mississippi, and begin it in February of 2011, just over a near from now. They will have Corollas coming off the assembly line here, 2,000 jobs for us in this plant plus more than that in supplier facilities around North Mississippi. It’s a big day for us, we have been celebrating, I haven’t been paying attention to Congress. JANSING: Well let me tell you a little bit about what was said there, maybe you had a chance to hear a little bit of what Luke Russert said. Because I think it certainly is relevant to your constituents who may have claims against BP. He said he thought this $20 billion in escrow was in fact a shakedown by the White House, that it’s a $20 billion slush fund, and he apologized to BP. What do you think about that? BARBOUR: Well first of all, it’s not $20 billion. I mean, when I heard this announced by the President, it concerned me that BP was going to have $20 billion taken and put into an escrow account. BP owes the people of Mississippi every bit of damage that’s been done. It’s BP’s responsibility to pay, we expect them to pay, we’re going to demand that they pay. But if the government had taken $20 billion of working capital from them, we were worried they couldn’t drill wells. Now we found out what the facts are, that it’s not $20 billion now, it’s $3 billion in the next quarter, $2 billion in the following quarter and then $5 billion in 12, $5 billion in 13, $45 billion at 14. That makes me feel much better, it makes me know that BP is going to be able to operate so they can generate the revenue to pay the people of Mississippi what BP owes them. Because BP is responsible for paying all the claims for all the legitimate damages that’s been done. JANSING: So in other words you think that what the White House has arranged, that this escrow fund– BARBOUR: She must not have liked my answer, I lost her. JANSING: Well, that was not the case, I want to make sure that he understands that it was nothing about his answer, I’m not quite sure why his ability to listen dropped out. I’m sorry, tell me again where we’re going? JANSING: We’re going to go now to Van Jones, who joins us live. Thanks very much for joining us, I’m sorry for the little bit of confusion, apparently our previous guest had some IFP problems. Have you had an opportunity to be listening to these hearings? JONES: I have. JANSING: You’ve been sitting there listening. So tell me what you think about this controversy, real controversy, false controversy, about the $20 billion fund? JONES: I think a real controversy, I mean, I was stunned and shocked. I don’t think any American official should be apologizing to this corporation that you saw all day long, here’s the head of this corporation, a multinational corporation that’s come to our country. As best we can tell, they corrupted our government. They slagged up our coastline. The criminal negligence has resulted in the death of innocent workers. America’s beauty, environment, workers, economy, all at risk. And the first thing out of the Republican leader’s mouth is to say “I’m sorry” to you? I think he has to apologize for the apology. But I think this is not just an accident. Night and day to hear the governor of Mississippi, who yesterday was attacking the first victory for America in this fight–getting this escrow fund is the first victory–you heard the governor of Mississippi who was just on this show yesterday attacking that. You have Michelle Bachmann calling it a redistribution of wealth fund. This is outrageous. This is the first glimmer of hope for the people in that region, there will be money on the table to help them get through this tough time. You have one party who is consistently, not just this official, but consistently, attacking this result. On the one hand, you’ve got the President of the United States who says he wants to kick some ass, and now you’ve got the other side saying apparently they want to kiss some ass. A pparently they believe there’s nothing a multinational corporation can do that’s wrong and nothing that the American government can do that’s right in this catastrophe. JANSING: Let me tell you what Senator John Cornyn had to say. Because he kind of gave a little bit of a defense of that statement. He said he believes that the president has made this a political issue. And he’s trying to deal with it by showing how tough he’s being against BP. He’s gone from being Commander in Chief to Claims Adjustor in Chief.  JONES: First of all, in this situation, one of the biggest catastrophes to ever hit our country, we should be proud that our President has stood up. With his address to the country, he said, “I’m going after BP. I’m going to make sure they’re responsible. The next day he brought them into the office. He said “Listen, you’re going to have put $20 billion on the table to make sure that this is going to be handled the right way. They said, “Yes, sir.” He said $100 million to make sure that our workers are going to be taken care of. Yes sir. $500 million to make sure that the help is assessed properly. Yes sir. He is getting this corporation to finally step up and do the things that they should do. Now, I cannot understand why we have people in our government who want American government to be weaker in the face of this crisis. We need America’s government to be stronger. This is not an accident. There is a whole ideology at play here that says “We hate the federal government, the federal government is a problem.” The last time I checked the federal government was America’s government. America’s government does not need to be weakened and undermined. America’s government needs to be strong enough to protect us from these kinds of predatory multinational corporations coming over here hurting the American people. JANSING: Well I’m curious about how you think, then, that these kinds of hearings play into that. I was checking out the British newspapers to see how they were covering this. And one of them said this was a public flogging of Tony Hayward. And I guess there are two general schools of thought. One is that this is nothing more than a chance for all the members of this committee to grand stand, to get their names in the local paper. Nobody thought we were going to get anything new out of Tony Hayward. Nothing is accomplished here, and they could be better, their time could be better spent working on the very real problems that have come out of this. On the other end of the spectrum is the idea that, you know what, this is an example for other CEOs. You do what BP did, and this is what’s going to happen. You, you’re going to end up sitting there and have all the nation watching you. Where do you come down on that?  JONES: Well, first of all let’s be clear. We did not know that this CEO was going to sit there and stone wall and stonewall. And he went to talk to the President and came out of that with real victories for the American people. The first glimmer of hope, the first victory for America in the past 60 days was yesterday. So there’s no reason to think he wouldn’t sit down and be forthright. He made a decision to sit there and look like he’s at the principal’s office, just waiting for for bell to ring and mom to come and get him. That was his choice. But he could have actually given the American people some comfort, some answers. We are 60 days into this process. He knows more than he said. And I think that what we’ve got to understand is that going forward, you’re going to see a big contrast. You’re going to have some people in American politics, who I hope they keep talking, that are going to make it clear. In the choice between standing with this multinational corporation, this oil company, or standing with the American people, they’re going to find every excuse to defend and apologize for–literally apologize for this corporation’s egregious, disgusting behavior. And you’re going to have other people who stand with the American people. That’s going to be the contrast going forth. It turned into theater because, again, this corporation refused, once again refused, to do the minimum, the minimum that would have been decent and respectful to the American people.

Excerpt from:
MSNBC Declares Barton’s Comments a Big Victory for Dems; Bring on Van Jones Afterwards